Syria

[carlfense]

Agree walks. Military action is for death and destruction not diplomacy.

Sounds like you don't understand the purpose of military action.

[carlfense]

As an aside . . . this is awesome to watch. The United States (and Obama himself) might walk out of this with a huge foreign policy victory without firing a single shot or risking the life of a US soldier . . . and a certain faction is talking about extreme weakness, indecisiveness, inappropriate timing of speeches, stupidity of Obama voters, etc.

 

It's fantastic. Best that I've seen since W. got Bin Laden.

[StPaulHusker]

As an aside . . . this is awesome to watch. The United States (and Obama himself) might walk out of this with a huge foreign policy victory without firing a single shot or risking the life of a US soldier . . . and a certain faction is talking about extreme weakness, indecisiveness, inappropriate timing of speeches, stupidity of Obama voters, etc.

 

It's fantastic. Best that I've seen since W. got Bin Laden.

I'm not a part of any faction. I thought based on what had transpired over the last few days, he could have pushed his speech back a day. Given everything that happened after today 12 years ago. Seemed like poor timing to talk about a war again.

 

 

[carlfense]

I'm not a part of any faction.

Right.

 

I thought based on what had transpired over the last few days, he could have pushed his speech back a day. Given everything that happened after today 12 years ago. Seemed like poor timing to talk about a war again.

Pushed it back a day to September 11?

 

The present pressing realities don't much care that it was the eve of the 12 year anniversary of 9/11.

[StPaulHusker]

I'm not a part of any faction.

Right.

 

I thought based on what had transpired over the last few days, he could have pushed his speech back a day. Given everything that happened after today 12 years ago. Seemed like poor timing to talk about a war again.

Pushed it back a day to September 11?

 

The present pressing realities don't much care that it was the eve of the 12 year anniversary of 9/11.

Couple of days. Sorry for the typo.

 

I care that it is the anniversary. I don't need your affirmation for my feelings on it.

[carlfense]

I care that it is <eve of the> the anniversary. I don't need your affirmation for my feelings on it.

Might want to add the above . . . ^

 

I care that today is the 9/11 anniversary, too. Time marches on regardless of my (or your) feelings.

[StPaulHusker]

I care that it is <eve of the> the anniversary. I don't need your affirmation for my feelings on it.

Might want to add the above . . . ^

 

I care that today is the 9/11 anniversary, too. Time marches on regardless of my (or your) feelings.

Congratulations. I hope you feel better.

[carlfense]

Congratulations. I hope you feel better.

Thanks. I feel well.

[walksalone]

As an aside . . . this is awesome to watch. The United States (and Obama himself) might walk out of this with a huge foreign policy victory without firing a single shot or risking the life of a US soldier . . . and a certain faction is talking about extreme weakness, indecisiveness, inappropriate timing of speeches, stupidity of Obama voters, etc.

 

It's fantastic. Best that I've seen since W. got Bin Laden.

 

I'm not sure you can classify this as a "victory", in the fact that Russia is pulling the strings of it's puppet in the middle east, so it's more of a bullet that was dodged. Not to mention, who's to say Putin says, we've taken their chemical weapons, and we're disposing them, when they don't even leave the country?

[carlfense]

I'm not sure you can classify this as a "victory", in the fact that Russia is pulling the strings of it's puppet in the middle east, so it's more of a bullet that was dodged.

I don't think that it can be classified as a victory yet. If (and at this point it's a big if) Assad gives up his chemical weapons and simultaneously keeps them out of the hands of extremists I don't think that this can be spun as anything but a victory.

 

Assuming for the sake of argument that this works, what do you think is the downside that you apparently think outweighs the upside?

 

Not to mention, who's to say Putin says, we've taken their chemical weapons, and we're disposing them, when they don't even leave the country?

That's where the details come in. You said that you wanted the UN involved. Assad's spokesman said that he would declare his weapons, sign the chemical weapons convention, and place the weapons in the hands of Russia, other countries, and the UN.

[Mavric]

Honest question: Has it been confirmed that chemical weapons were used? I think so but I haven't followed closely enough to know for sure. There seemed to be quite a delay between when it was reported they were used and anything actually happening.

 

Second: What percentage (roughly) of the violence/killings have chemical weapons been involved in?

[carlfense]

Honest question: Has it been confirmed that chemical weapons were used? I think so but I haven't followed closely enough to know for sure. There seemed to be quite a delay between when it was reported they were used and anything actually happening.

The consensus is yes.

 

Second: What percentage (roughly) of the violence/killings have chemical weapons been involved in?

About 1%.

[Mavric]

Honest question: Has it been confirmed that chemical weapons were used? I think so but I haven't followed closely enough to know for sure. There seemed to be quite a delay between when it was reported they were used and anything actually happening.

The consensus is yes.

 

Second: What percentage (roughly) of the violence/killings have chemical weapons been involved in?

About 1%.

So, as I said earlier, it's a good thing to do, assuming it actually gets done. But how is getting rid of something that we're pretty sure happened but has very little to do with the ongoing situation, was mostly forced by Putin and does nothing to work toward and probably works against Obama's assertion that Assad should no longer be in power be considered a "huge foreign policy victory"? Perhaps in a relative sense but that's about it.

[carlfense]

So, as I said earlier, it's a good thing to do, assuming it actually gets done.

Yep.

 

But how is getting rid of something that we're pretty sure happened but has very little to do with the ongoing situation . . .

Are you referring to the civil war?

 

. . . was mostly forced by Putin . . .

And you don't wonder why Putin acted now?

 

. . . and does nothing to work toward and probably works against Obama's assertion that Assad should no longer be in power . . .

I don't think that many would disagree with Obama that Assad shouldn't be in power. The problem is who will seize power if/when Assad falls.

 

. . . be considered a "huge foreign policy victory"?

I doubt that you need this explained to you.

[JJ Husker]

Agree walks. Military action is for death and destruction not diplomacy.

Sounds like you don't understand the purpose of military action.

 

Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand. "Threatening" military action can be a form of negotiation or diplomacy but, once that military action starts, it needs to be about killing the enemy and destroying their strategic assets. Period. I suppose the end game of winning (the enemy conceding) could be considered diplomacy but my point was we should never commit our troops or forces in a half-assed manner. I learned that as a young boy watching coverage of the Vietnam war on the TV. Destroy and kill expeditiously or STFO.

 

In what different manner would you propose we should use military force?